Um, I may just be dense, but your post seems to indicate that you want to discuss whether a fetus is a person, but not whether they possess humanity. Isn't that the same discussion?
As to the violinist thing, a) it seems like too much of a Fantastic Aesop type thing to take seriously and b) seems kind of stacked. By making the man a violinist and those who want to save him "music lovers", the argument for saving him becomes pre-emptively devalued with the insinuation that the only reason anyone could possibly care to save him, and therefore put the one person through nine months of severe discomfort, is because they like his music, not because of his intrinsic value as a person.
Further, by reducing the person to being bedridden for nine months, it seems that the author of the thought experiment is including greater discomfort than actual pregnancy.
No, I desire neither humanity nor person-hood nor anything of the sort discussed. Simply because there are a slew of other things worth talking about.
As for the violinist, perhaps one could spice it up in order to make it much more difficult?
Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GODThe issue with the "violinist argument" (ignoring all the other nitpicks one's always tempted to do with hypotheticals) is that abortion is comparable not to unhooking the violinist from yourself but to giving him a lethal injection while he's attached to you. Abortion actively kills the foetus as opposed to merely letting it die. (Moreover, you are responsible for the foetus's existence, while you are not responsible for the violinist's coma — but an ethical obligation to provide life support or other reparations for someone you injure seems to exist only in my mind and may not be practicable in all cases.)
I am pro-choice, btw.
I have devised a most marvelous signature, which this signature line is too narrow to contain.Eh, I've never liked the idea that the extension of abortion rights should be dependent on whether intercourse was consensual.
That seems offensive to both pro-lifers ("is the child responsible for the rape?") and pro-choicers ("why should consent to sex equal consent to pregnancy?"). I wonder if the third side proposing that kind of thing has its own name. "The Bastardslayers" seems somehow too fanciful. ,.<
I have devised a most marvelous signature, which this signature line is too narrow to contain.The point of the exception is that rape is a case where "if you didn't want the kid you shouldn't have chosen to have sex" clearly falls apart. @ aishkiz
However, it isn't necessarily the only case where the argument falls apart; it's more so a clear example of why it's not so simple. Yes, the fetus is the responsibility of the one carrying it, but why doesn't terminating the fetus before it has feelings or emotions or thoughts or consciousness (which probably don't develop until the 3rd trimester anyway putting aside superstitions like "souls") qualify as taking responsibility for it?
Another thought about "killing vs letting die". This one does not quite agree with an assumption that in this case abortion is specifically killing. I've heard it said that left alone, fetus will eventually grow into baby just fine, but thing is, it is never "left alone", and cannot be. It requires active and direct support of mother's organism to survive, so if anything, it would be equivalent to a person born with deliberating condition that requires them to be on life support from birth.
edited 21st Jan '11 11:53:37 AM by Beholderess
If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common@Anonym: thanks for an interesting thread! I thought I had heard everything on this debate, but the Violinist thing was a new one, and very thought provoking.
"As for the violinist, perhaps one could spice it up in order to make it much more difficult?"
OK- how about make the adult violinist the persons own infant child, and the child is dying because their parent accidently poisoned them. Thats as close an analogy as I can get to an abortion.
Now what conclusions do we come to?
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.- Digs through old abortion thread
Ah, here it is. My point that I've never seen properly addressed in any abortion debate, and it has nothing to do with the alive-ness of a fetus.
Anti-abortion laws are unenforceable.
Now what do I mean by that? Well, two things specifically:
- One is that outlawing abortion (as it was before) turns out a lot like prohibition: lots of underground practice with significantly less safety. And while "people will do it anyways" is not always an appropriate argument against laws, but in situations where enforcement is impossible it applies quite readily. Ideals are great but governments operate in reality.
- And Two, the real killer-what penalty do you enforce on women getting abortions?
Another thought about "killing vs letting die". This one does not quite agree with an assumption that in this case abortion is specifically killing. I've heard it said that left alone, fetus will eventually grow into baby just fine, but thing is, it is never "left alone", and cannot be. It requires active and direct support of mother's organism to survive, so if anything, it would be equivalent to a person born with deliberating condition that requires them to be on life support from birth.
My point that I've never seen properly addressed in any abortion debate
edited 21st Jan '11 3:09:48 PM by aishkiz
I have devised a most marvelous signature, which this signature line is too narrow to contain.^ Nine months?
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awfulinb4 "If you get pregnant when you don't want to, it's your fault for not keeping your legs shut."
Yeah, and if you get gunned down in the street, it's your fault for not wearing a bulletproof vest.
Yeah, the OP makes no sense whatsoever. It's not clear what exactly we're supposed to discuss. It's like trying to have a debate about teaching evolution without mentioning science.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayI do think the abortion debate is weird, but only because liberals and conservatives flip their arguments. "Animals are cute and innocent!" is used against animal testing, but it seems like the same people don't take "Babies are cute and innocent!" as a valid anti-abortion argument. Meanwhile, the people who say "People will still break the law to get illegal guns!" find it ridiculous that "People will still break the law to get illegal abortions!" I mean, it might make sense if these people appeared to have actually put thought into why the situations are different, but it seems like a lot of them are just thinking "This is my party's line, so it must be right" and not even bothering with the parallels.
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful"you want to discuss whether a fetus is a person, but not whether they possess humanity. Isn't that the same discussion?"
No.
As for the thought experiment, it's dumb in its entirety. First off, there's no reason why "being hooked up to the violinist" would save him, or bring him out of a coma. Contriving such circumstances makes the entire premise flawed from the beginning. But, for the sake of argument, your rights are inherently violated within the situation at hand anyways. During conception a fetus is produced by a biological reaction, which is completely different from being unknowingly forced into the other situation.
If anything, the whole thought experiment is a better analogy of if rape victims deserve to abort.
The "experiment" also fails to draw parallels between the medical complications and lasting affects of actual pregnancy.
edited 21st Jan '11 4:55:45 PM by CommandoDude
So is the real topic of this thread the validity of contrived ethical thought experiments or what?
I've got a good one. There's a spy on your ship. He is afraid of torture and will confess instantly. Unfortunately, if you don't figure out who it is, he will blow up the super bowl in an hour. Also, everyone on the ship is identical and is sitting on a traintrack. Do you throw the spy onto the lever or not?
edited 21st Jan '11 5:20:53 PM by storyyeller
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

OK, I recognize the other abortion threads thus far, but they [bug] me expressly because they never really explore much more than person-hood.
Essentially this thread is a thread on all thing related to abortion in general, but humanity derails ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. We have other threads for that.
Back when we had Roe v. Wade, the Supreme court ultimately decided that until people could decide on things, they would just throw the issue to the wind. Before anyone points out Loki's fallacy, I would like to point out that I am aware of the following:
I believe that simply put, it is impossible to know which of these two definitions is better; so until a messenger descends from heaven and tells us who is right, we need to examine things from both angles and assumptions.
This thread won't be pointless as you may assume; there are several things of which we could count ourselves victorious:
If anyone complains that they "don't want" to participate because if either side is correct about the nature of the fetus, then the other has already lost, I would like to point out that sufficient reason could be given to abort the child, even if they are completely alive, human, and sentient. Lol, Anonym kills babies (there, now that I said it, no one else can).
Anyone who violates the rules will be eviscerated; further, anyone that uses emotionally charged language will be buried upside down in dirt with their feet sticking out, and said feet will be painted by napalm and set ablaze.
To start off discussion, I would like to ask public opinion on the aforementioned Violinist.
edited 21st Jan '11 10:40:09 AM by TheMightyAnonym
Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD